GARILLANO v. HOR
PROPER PARTY
In G.R. No. 170338, petitioner Garcillano justifies his standing to initiate the petition by alleging that
he is the person alluded to in the "Hello Garci" tapes. Further, his was publicly identified by the
members of the respondent committees as one of the voices in the recordings.27 Obviously, therefore,
petitioner Garcillano stands to be directly injured by the House committees’ actions and charges of
electoral fraud. The Court recognizes his standing to institute the petition for prohibition.
In G.R. No. 179275, petitioners Ranada and Agcaoili justify their standing by alleging that they are
concerned citizens, taxpayers, and members of the IBP. They are of the firm conviction that any
attempt to use the "Hello Garci" tapes will further divide the country. They wish to see the legal and
proper use of public funds that will necessarily be defrayed in the ensuing public hearings. They are
worried by the continuous violation of the laws and individual rights, and the blatant attempt to abuse
constitutional processes through the conduct of legislative inquiries purportedly in aid of legislation.28
Intervenor Sagge alleges violation of his right to due process considering that he is summoned to
attend the Senate hearings without being apprised not only of his rights therein through the publication
of the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation, but also of the intended
legislation which underpins the investigation. He further intervenes as a taxpayer bewailing the useless
and wasteful expenditure of public funds involved in the conduct of the questioned hearings.29
Given that petitioners Ranada and Agcaoili allege an interest in the execution of the laws and that
intervenor Sagge asserts his constitutional right to due process,30 they satisfy the requisite personal
stake in the outcome of the controversy by merely being citizens of the Republic
AKBAYAN v. AQUINO
Standing
For a petition for mandamus such as the one at bar to be given due course, it must be instituted by
a party aggrieved by the alleged inaction of any tribunal, corporation, board or person which
unlawfully excludes said party from the enjoyment of a legal right.7 Respondents deny that
petitioners have such standing to sue. “[I]n the interest of a speedy and definitive resolution of the
substantive issues raised,” however, respondents consider it sufficient to cite a portion of the ruling
in Pimentel v. Office of Executive Secretary8 which emphasizes the need for a “personal stake in
the outcome of the controversy” on questions of standing.
In a petition anchored upon the right of the people to information on matters of public concern,
which is a public right by its very nature, petitioners need not show that they have any legal or
special interest in the result, it being sufficient to show that they are citizens and, therefore, part of
the general public which possesses the right.9 As the present petition is anchored on the right to
information and petitioners are all suing in their capacity as citizens and groups of citizens
including petitioners-members of the House of Representatives who additionally are suing in their
capacity as such, the standing of petitioners to file the present suit is grounded in jurisprudence.
Mootness
Considering, however, that “[t]he principal relief petitioners are praying for is the disclosure of the
contents of the JPEPA prior to its finalization between the two States parties,”10 public disclosure
of the text of the JPEPA after its signing by the President, during the pendency of the present
petition, has been largely rendered moot and academic.
With the Senate deliberations on the JPEPA still pending, the agreement as it now stands cannot
yet be considered as final and binding between the two States. Article 164 of the JPEPA itself
provides that the agreement does not take effect immediately upon the signing thereof. For it must
still go through the procedures required by the laws of each country for its entry into force,
Article 164
Entry into Force
This Agreement shall enter into force on the thirtieth day after the date on which the Governments
of the Parties exchange diplomatic notes informing each other that their respective legal
procedures necessary for entry into force of this Agreement have been completed. It shall
remain in force unless terminated as provided for in Article 165.11 (Emphasis supplied)
President Arroyo’s endorsement of the JPEPA to the Senate for concurrence is part of the legal
procedures which must be met prior to the agreement’s entry into force.
The text of the JPEPA having then been made accessible to the public, the petition has become
moot and academic to the extent that it seeks the disclosure of the “full text” thereof.
The petition is not entirely moot, however, because petitioners seek to obtain, not merely the text
of the JPEPA, but also the Philippine and Japanese offers in the course of the negotiations.12
A discussion of the substantive issues, insofar as they impinge on petitioners’ demand for access
to the Philippine and Japanese offers, is thus in order.